And for that an electronic x-over is necessary.
So your stand, if I understand you correctly @jasonbourne52 an electronic crossover, as in any crossover designed to pass on an alternating electrical current? What? The speakers are designed and sold with electronic crossovers in them. Do you mean a digitally controlled electronic crossover?
________________________________________________________
If the speakers have two sets of terminals, I’m going to assume the designer created a crossover that has separate circuits for each sets of drivers, not always a two way. I am also assuming you presently like the sound produced by the loudspeaker in question 393gadget?
My pair of speakers have one set of terminals, there are capacitors and inductors that block the lower frequencies and remove the higher frequencies, and then another pair that feeds the tweeters that are taken off the top of the same signal in the same circuit. These circuits do a few things simultaneously, which is why often it’s called a dark art to get right. They supply the drivers a frequency range that mask driver breakout (where the driver doesn’t act linearly in response to the energies it sees) and there’s a handover of duties in drivers where the sum of SPL (sound pressure levels) delivered by the drivers throughout the crossover frequencies are supposed to sound as though one driver is playing, and as it’s through a reactive network, and so also cohesive in the time domain. It’s like solving a Rubik’s cube, whereby correcting one side you might get two others wrong. Then there’s shunting capacitors to control the energies the drivers see, to balance out the frequency response, in my particular crossover.
Now, if you’re going to bypass the crossovers the designer used, you’d damned well better know a lot more about the drivers’ frequency response, and impedance characteristics.
In my pair of speakers the power which is alternating current, gets truncated and lower frequencies are sent to the bass driver, the high passed energies are then delivered to the tweeter, sharing both the active and the ground.
A bi-wire crossover can be more complicated to get right, and is distinctly designed to work with a separate ground and active per circuit, instead of sharing the potential offered by the ground between the frequencies that are passed through, as in my pair of speakers. That is, unless they are jumpered.
With all electrical circuits to actually work, potential is needed, and a true bi-wire crossover actually has separate circuits within it to feed duties to drivers.
To bi-wire to a single amplifier, using a star ground to the terminals, where the speaker wires are not sharing the negative potential.
And pesky-wabbit sates correctly the reactance of the crossover with the drivers gets separated and distinct for the two amplifiers. There is certainly potential for better performance this way.
Ultimately, the cost / performance benefits are something to be weighed up, in order to buy two amplifiers, would a superior single (more costly) stereo (or mono block) make the biggest difference? And wiring a star to ground using bi-wire on a single channel amplifier, would the money be better spent on a better quality traditional speaker wire?
Certainly the electrical circuits in bi-amping are different than bi-wiring, using a single amplifier or for a channel with multiple circuits feeding the drivers in a traditional wiring configuration.
https://www.hifipage.com/high-end-hi-fi-jargon-explained-275/
